Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting VarigB707 (Thread starter): |
Quoting Aero145 (Reply 7): I'm a happy Mac user, just like you, but reading all your adverts is funny. No offense, just funny. |
Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
In that case a Mac or MacBook can be the better option for you. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): With Macs, you don't have the option of buying anything BUT a $2000 premium system. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 13): $600, no display, no keyboard and mouse... |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 13): $1300 with those luxury items |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 13): without adding on any of their limited upgrade possibilities like additional memory or HD space |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 13): or any of the Mac applications that are supposed to be the main attraction |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 13): But, really neat looking. |
Quoting FlyKev (Reply 4): Its a lot easier to use, it runs a lot smoother and it is a lot safer. |
Quoting FlyKev (Reply 4): I adopted Vista 5 days before its official launch and it worked with all but one of my games then. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 16): Nitpick all you want. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 16): the point is, it's a $1300 system. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 16): It should be expected to perform better than the $350 wonder which does, in most cases anymore, come bundled with a keyboard, mouse and display. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 16): The average $350 user is not going to go elsewhere to get the display and keyboard |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 16): It may be a perfectly good system, that's not what I'm arguing. It is a system that should be expected to perform better than the base PC. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): With Macs, you don't have the option of buying anything BUT a $2000 premium system. |
Quoting Klaus (Reply 5):
If you've got a relatively new up-to-date gaming PC and playing the newest games is a priority for you, Vista will be required for a growing number of them. |
Quoting TUNisia (Reply 23): With VISTA you still can't force refresh rates (some of us still use 24"+ flat CRTs) as you can in XP. |
Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 22): Only thing I don't like about it is the slow start-up, so I leave the computer on. |
Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 24): Slow startup? I turn my computer on, once it goes through BIOS checks, etc, and loads the Vista loader screen, it stays there for *maybe* 4 seconds, then shows login screen. It takes me all of 20 seconds from the time I hit the on button on the computer, to when I can be on A.net front page. (yes, I timed it. I'm that much of a nerd... I know) Kinda fast, IMO. |
Quoting TZ757300 (Reply 27): |
Quoting Zak (Reply 29): just get this here, burn the cd and boot it to test: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu |
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 15): Maybe for someone who's never touched a machine with 95/98/XP, but for someone who's dealt with all systems, albeit I was a bit young with 95, XP is much more user-friendly then Vista. I've had both XP and Vista installed on my machine (Dual Core Duo 2.93 Ghz X6800, 4 GB RAM, 512 MB X1900 Crossfire Vid Card), and I've never had so many issues with an operating system. To me, Vista made 98 look stable as all hell. I'll be forced to use Vista in a few years kicking and screaming, but for now, XP is here to stay. |
Quoting Zak (Reply 29): just get this here, burn the cd and boot it to test: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu |
Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 30): Fedora is waaaaaay better. KDE is much nicer than gnome. But I think thats for a different topic. Notice this is a discussion about XP and Vista Wink |
Quoting Tmatt95 (Reply 32): The great thing about open source and linux in particular when it comes to operating systems is that when one OS makes an advancement (they do all the time), they all do. |
Quoting VarigB707 (Thread starter): Should I Upgrade From WinXP To WinVIsta? |
Quoting TUNisia (Reply 36): NVIDIA here |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): With Macs, you don't have the option of buying anything BUT a $2000 premium system. That same $2000 can go a bit further with PC equipment of the same quality. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): Macs are idiot-proofed out of the box. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): Macs now use the same processors as PCs, and the interface differences between Vista and the Mac OS aren't that overwhelming. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): The fact is, you still have to run Windows on the Mac to be able to run all of the PC applications you want to run. Why spend the extra cash? |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): I don't try to act as the anti-Klaus and propogandize people away from Macs, as he does with PCs, but I just like to move people past what really sells Macs: the hype, the cool looks and the smug "i'm smarter than you because I have a Mac" mentality. Do any of those things make your computer work better? |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): It all boils down to personal preference. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): If you wonder why your $2000 Mac works so much better than the $350 HP Best Buy special, then you need your head examined. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 10): As far as security...keep your copy of Windows updated! It practically does it on its own anyhow. There are also many freeware firewalls and antivirus programs out there that are just as good or better than the expensive stuff. Also, as Macs become more widespread, so too does the interest hackers take in creating viruses for them. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 19): It's not better just because it's a Mac...it's better that what they had because it would be an upgrade over what they already had whether a Mac or a PC. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 19): Apple marketing, throught their gimmicks, unique packaging and the propogation of the myth that using their product is "smarter", is able to convince people to fork over the extra money. Marketing, however, doesn't give you a better product. Credit them...it's good business. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 19): My point...if Apple built a discount Mac and only had available components that would fit that price range, people would have the same sort of issues. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 19): What I tire of are the blanket, categorical statements like "It's a Mac, so it works," as if PCs don't, or your own, |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 19): PCs come in many different configs and from many different companies, with varying degrees of tech support. |
Quoting Cwapilot (Reply 19): You get what you pay for |
Quoting GQfluffy (Reply 15): I'll be forced to use Vista in a few years kicking and screaming, but for now, XP is here to stay. |
Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 20): For me, to the point that Mac fanboys actually are keeping me from buying a Mac. You remind me of the christians that tell people "You're going to hell if you don't become a Christian" right when they first see them. |
Quoting Bagpiper (Reply 20): ok, really, guys, he asked a simple question: Should I upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista? He did not ask whether to get a Mac or not. |
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 39):
Using the example of a university that basically forces their students to buy a Mac because of the iLife package is used in some way in every class, and then passing it as "These students were smart to buy a Mac because it's better than a PC" is a poor argument. |
Quote: Q. What brand or model should I buy? A. The faculty has designated Apple Computer as its preferred provider for two primary reasons: (1) Apple's OS X operating system is based on Unix, which makes these computers far less susceptible to viruses than other computers. Viruses are a serious problem on university campuses. (2) Apple iBook and PowerBook computers come bundled with iLife, a suite of applications ideal for learning the basics of photo editing, and audio and video editing. We'll use those programs in several classes. Incoming students will receive information on recommended models and pricing in February of each year. Q. What if I prefer a Windows-based machine? A. That's an option, but it's one we do not recommend unless you plan to make a career of computer-assisted reporting. By the time you purchase photo, audio and video software for a PC, you probably will have spent more than you would if buying a comparable Apple Computer. Buy a PC if you prefer to do so, but make sure it is wireless and has Microsoft Office. Almost 100 percent of last year's freshmen chose Apple computers. |
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 39):
Also, saying that a PC is limited to Windows when the Mac can run both OSX and Windows is a farce, because Apple inherently programmed OSX to run only on Apple hardware. Is that fair competition? No, I think not. |
Quoting Klaus (Reply 40): Would you give the big bully who's extorting everyone out of their lunch money an advantage just because he's retarded? |
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 41): And now calling names? I have respect for you because you don't go to low blows, but then you do this, Klaus. |
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 39): Using the example of a university that basically forces their students to buy a Mac because of the iLife package is used in some way in every class, and then passing it as "These students were smart to buy a Mac because it's better than a PC" is a poor argument. |
Quoting Klaus (Reply 40): And, of course, there are good reasons why the university came to those recommendations: |
Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 43): Agreed. University faculty usually lives in a bubble.. A bubble where Apple is a good option, along with a few other fallacies of life. |
Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 43): Actually those are shitty reasons. What do you think is going to be on their desk when they get to a job with a small to mid sized newspaper with a limited budget? Everybody but Klaus guessed it.. A PC. |
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 39): Apple inherently programmed OSX to run only on Apple hardware. Is that fair competition? No, I think not. |
Quoting Klaus (Reply 38): you should skip the current 32 bit intermediate stage of Vista which will later have to be ditched yet again for the 64 bit version which will become the standard |
Quoting Klaus (Reply 38): Oh, come on. It looks a lot as if you've never bothered to take a closer look over the fence. And taking a closer look is what it's really about. |
Quoting Klaus (Reply 38): It is very unlikely for many reasons that the Mac will ever reach or exceed Windows in vulnerability. At this point you don't even need an "antivirus" application on a Mac (this may change some day - but six years into MacOS X it hasn't yet). And zero to tens of thousands of active threats (as under Windows) would be a very tall order indeed... |
Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 46): hackers have no big incentives to attack macs when they can mess up a Windows system |
Quoting Aloges (Reply 45): First of all, it's Aplle's choice what sort of system they want their OS to run on. |